[racktables-users] Re: Rooms/Floors/Buildings.

  • From: Matt Shields <matt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: racktables-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Fri, 4 Mar 2011 11:29:37 -0500

On Fri, Mar 4, 2011 at 11:10 AM, Les Mikesell <lesmikesell@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> On 3/4/2011 8:24 AM, Tyler J. Wagner wrote:
>> On Fri, 2011-03-04 at 07:56 -0600, Les Mikesell wrote:
>>> But the hard part (and much of the point of racktables) is the visual
>>> display.
>>> Can you generalize how nested objects should appear?  Or should only
>>> racks be
>>> displayed with the containing objects just used for navigation?.  Or only
>>> the
>>> innermost objects - or objects that have rack position and size
>>> attributes?
>> I would again define that by ObjectType. For ObjectType "Rack", define
>> it as having a number of rows with 3 columns (front/middle/back). For
>> ObjectType "Row", define it as having an number of columns with 1 row
>> each. For ObjectType "Room", define both rows and columns as
>> configurable. Leave the x and y as definable on each object, with some
>> sane defaults defined in the ObjectType template.
>> Allowing more columns would also solve the tall PDU problem. Racks could
>> have columns for the PDUs with one row in them.
> If you are conceptually nesting things, shouldn't columns inside a rack
> become arbitrary slices within the outer space?  Most of mine don't quite
> fit a front/middle/back layout even though it comes close.
>  In this case, visualisation must either be a flat x by y grid (like
>> now), or we'd have to actually define things in 3D and have multiple
>> views. Flat is good enough for now, even if it makes the tall PDU column
>> look odd.
> What do you do if you have a pair of tower boxes sitting on a rack shelf
> side by side?
> --
>  Les Mikesell
>   lesmikesell@xxxxxxxxx
You have the same problem if you have a rack full of mac mini servers.  I
can fit them flat 2 wide and 3 deep in a rack (6 servers per U).  Or I can
stand them on end and 30 per 5U (10 across, 3 deep)


Other related posts: